NEW- Gould Estate v. Edmonds Landscape & Construction Services Ltd, 1998 CanLII 5136 (NS SC).

  • January 05, 1998

Date: 1998-01-05. Docket: S. H. No. 93-1729. J Macdonald, J. | Link

Ferna Gould paid the defendants for construction, landscaping and personal care. Her executor, the plaintiff in this action, alleges the defendants took advantage of Mrs. Gould and seeks to have the estate indemnified. The defendants argue that Mrs. Gould received advice from her accountant, stockbroker and lawyer and seek production of documents relating to this advice. The plaintiff acknowledges that Mrs. Gould received advice from these professionals, but argues that the documents are irrelevant because they do not contain any information about Mrs. Gould’s relationship with the defendant. The plaintiff admits that Mrs. Gould was competent; the claim is based upon undue influence and breach of fiduciary trust. “Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant John E. Edmonds either personally or through his companies seduced or charmed the deceased out of a substantial amount of money. Whether there is merit to these allegations or not, they clearly did not involve her ability to deal with financial or legal advisors. […] the defendant cannot hope to establish any more from production of these files than has already been acknowledged. This includes the fact that the plaintiff received ongoing capable advice from these professionals throughout the relevant time period.” The court dismissed the defendant’s application on plaintiff’s counsel’s acknowledgement that the documents contain no reference to the defendants. If the documents deal with Mrs. Gould’s relationship to the defendants, they would be relevant and producible.